I vote for always rude, and frankly rather obnoxious. What is the objective? To show off how much you know? To embarrass the joke teller by pointing out that their joke is old news? To tell it better? To steal the spotlight?

Especially now that good jokes travel around the world in a matter of minutes (I really feel sorry for comedians), odds are good that I've already heard a joke someone is telling. So what? It won't hurt me to listen to it again. And I will always laugh at other people's jokes, even if I've already heard them (unless they are offensive). It's just the nice thing to do. What does it cost me? I do observe some people who seem to think that only laughing at the funniest jokes or applauding for the only finest performances is an announcement of their own excellent standards. I think that shows insecurity, actually.

I'd even extend this to saying or otherwise signaling (like a "yeah, yeah," nod) that you've already heard it, unless you are the only audience and you know the person would prefer you tell them.

Our milkman was a great fan of Soupy Sales. He also delivered milk to the home of Mitch Miller and was in the habit of throwing out a Soupy 'Show me an X and I'll show you a Y' joke when he entered the kitchen with the daily order.

One day, there was a visitor sitting at the table when our milkman started his joke. The visitor turned around and finished it. The visitor was Soupy Sales!

Few people will mind if Soupy Sales steps on a joke but, in other situations, discretion is the better part of wit, as it were. Unless you and the joke-teller have a very close relationship and enjoy this sort of thing, I'd let the joker finish.

Love this story! And, yes, by knowing who both of these celebrities are I am dating myself.

This is tricky for me because I think it matters whether the "answerer" knows the answer because they've heard the joke before, or they're hearing it for the first time and want to participate by trying to figure it out. Of course, the joke-teller might have no way of knowing which of those is true.

To me, riddles are supposed to be interactive. In most situations, I think the joke-teller should expect their "audience" to try and figure it out because that's part of the fun. I think it would be odd to get upset over it.

I would definitely take certain factors into consideration like the person's age. If a small child asks me, "What's black and white and read all over?" I would not let on that I know the answer because I understand that it's probably new to them and I don't want to ruin their punchline. If they ask afterwards if I'd heard it before, I might say that I have, but enjoyed hearing it again and they told it very well.

But if there was a room full of adults who were all born in the US, and are all native English speakers, and someone told that joke, I'd think they were expecting everyone to just groan and laugh, or answer in unison, because they'd know most adults know the answer since it's such a popular childhood joke here.

I agree with Daydream. People are suppose to try and guess the answer to a riddle. That's part of the fun . . . stumping the audience. It certainly isn't rude if you happen to guess the answer.

However, I do think it's a bit rude to blurt out the answer if you've heard the riddle before without giving others a chance to guess.

With story-type jokes, I see absolutely no reason to interrupt the joke-teller with the punchline. Interrupting someone who is talking (joke or otherwise) is just plain rude.

A riddle would be like, "a man's car arrives at a hotel and he realises he is bankrupt... how?" With the person being asked then asking yes/no questions to find the answer. A riddle is supposed to make you think, a joke (like the ducks and light bulbs) is supposed to make you laugh.

If someone tells you a joke, like one of those "What do you get/what happens when..." jokes, is it considered rude if you actually answer the question? I was sitting with a group of friends and we were swapping jokes. When someone already knows a joke I tell and responds, I think it's funny and we usually have a mutual laugh-at the end of the day the joke's being told in its entirety, even if it's split. But another girl said that I "ruined" hers when I actually answered with the punch line. I've seen this go both ways so I was wondering what e-hell thought about it.

Other girl is being childish. If someone says: "What goes tick-tick-woof-woof?" and you say: "A watch dog!" then hilarity ensues, or groaning. That's how it's supposed to work. If you want people to say: "I don't know, what goes tick-tick-woof-woof?" then you need to have a question to which they don't know the answer. Up your game. Find a nine year old.

Joke telling relies on being able to surprise the person hearing the joke. It's very selfish to insist that the pleasure of the joke is solely in the telling. The pleasure of the joke should be in creating the response in the listener, which changes if the listener knows the answer.

A riddle would be like, "a man's car arrives at a hotel and he realises he is bankrupt... how?" With the person being asked then asking yes/no questions to find the answer. A riddle is supposed to make you think, a joke (like the ducks and light bulbs) is supposed to make you laugh.

How many ducks does it take to change a light bulb is a riddle, not a joke.

It is a question that makes one think. It is a puzzle to solve. A riddle can be intriguing and/or humorous or both combined. The duck question is goofy, but still a riddle.

A joke is something that makes people laugh. A story with a punch line ending is a joke. A joke teller and an audience. A pratfall doesn't require an answer, but it's still comedy.

Comedians get up on stage and all they do is tell jokes. When someone in the audience interrupts a comedian . . . they are called hecklers.

2 replies while I was posting and I think I missed something. Going back to re-read but posting anyway.

A lot of people here refer to "social circles," so I wonder if the ones I belonged to as a kid told these jokes in an "unusual" way, or just a "different" way than others.

It's been a long time since I was a kid, but the way I remember it is that someone would ask a question like the newspaper joke I mentioned before. Then people would try to guess the answer until someone got it right, everyone said they "gave up," or the joke-teller asked, "does everyone give up?" and revealed the answer.

If I'd heard the joke before, I refrained from answering out of respect to those who wanted to guess. But if I hadn't heard it before, I never felt like I shouldn't participate in guessing, and I don't remember the joke-tellers getting upset when people guessed "correctly." It never felt like they were a comedian telling a non-interactive joke onstage where it would be rude to interrupt him.

Other than my own childhood, the other experiences I remember with these types of jokes were when my sister's kids were children. Often without having heard the joke before, the answer would just be immediately obvious due to the fact that I was a teenager or adult, so I would not answer. They are all in their 20s now, though, so that was a while ago, too.

If someone tells you a joke, like one of those "What do you get/what happens when..." jokes, is it considered rude if you actually answer the question? I was sitting with a group of friends and we were swapping jokes. When someone already knows a joke I tell and responds, I think it's funny and we usually have a mutual laugh-at the end of the day the joke's being told in its entirety, even if it's split. But another girl said that I "ruined" hers when I actually answered with the punch line. I've seen this go both ways so I was wondering what e-hell thought about it.

Other girl is being childish. If someone says: "What goes tick-tick-woof-woof?" and you say: "A watch dog!" then hilarity ensues, or groaning. That's how it's supposed to work. If you want people to say: "I don't know, what goes tick-tick-woof-woof?" then you need to have a question to which they don't know the answer. Up your game. Find a nine year old.

Joke telling relies on being able to surprise the person hearing the joke. It's very selfish to insist that the pleasure of the joke is solely in the telling. The pleasure of the joke should be in creating the response in the listener, which changes if the listener knows the answer.

I agree. If the joke involves asking a question, of course people are going to try to respond, whether they already know the answer or whether they've guessed it.